Frank commentary from a retired call girl

Shift in the Wind

When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right. – Eugene V. Debs

Did you feel the wind on sex worker rights change direction last week? Because it did, for the better and perhaps for the foreseeable future. It’s been a long time coming; the internet has made blogs like this one and many others possible, and platforms like Twitter have given a voice to sex workers who find writing difficult, and exposed readers who might never have visited a blog like this one to those voices. To be sure, it’s also given the prohibitionists another way to spread their lies far and wide, but given that they already had the mainstream media it’s been far less of a boon to them as it has been to us.

But people still have a way of not listening until the existence of a problem is shoved into their faces, all too often by tragedy. In Canada and the UK, murders and other violence against sex workers have pushed reasonable people (and even many unreasonable ones) toward decriminalization, but in the United States it seems to be AIDS which is doing the job. Many health officials have been pointing out for decades that criminalization encourages the spread of HIV, and though prohibitionists have tried to hijack that message toward the Swedish Model, “sex trafficking” hysteria and “end demand” charlatanry, decriminalization has slowly become the default position among health officials, even in countries with full or partial criminalization regimes. This trend culminated just a few weeks ago in a UNAIDS commission of experts in health and health law recommending absolute decriminalization of sex work and the sex industry everywhere, thus repudiating criminalization, legalization, the Swedish model, the Nevada model and all other such schemes at one stroke.

Shortly after the release of that report came the International AIDS Conference, whose leaders were clearly embarrassed and apologetic for the United states’ high-handed and asinine refusal to allow sex worker delegates into the country to attend the gathering; the executive director of UNAIDS said it was “outrageous…[that] when we have everything to beat this epidemic, we still have to fight prejudice, stigma, discrimination, exclusion, criminalization.” An American politician, Representative Barbara Lee of California, actually fought to have sex workers allowed at the conference, and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton said, “If we’re going to beat AIDS, we can’t afford to avoid sensitive conversations, and we can’t fail to reach the people who are at the highest risk.” Clinton is no supporter of sex worker rights; though she has often used the term “sex worker” rather than the prohibitionist term “prostituted woman”, she has also been as ardent a promoter of “trafficking” hysteria as anyone. But she is a political animal, and if she is beginning to make sex-worker-rights-like sounds it’s because she senses that it’s politically safe or even advantageous to do so.

Though American sex worker rights activists (who were already in the country and therefore much more difficult to silence) made several protests at the conference, the real coup was scored by activists in India who organized – without the help of any government, charity or “rescue” organization – a “Sex Worker Freedom Festival” in Kolkata, held at the same time as the main conference and connected to it by internet; this gathering attracted worldwide media attention, made vital contributions to the AIDS convention from the far side of the planet, and generally made US officials look both foolish and impotent.

When…Pathways of Women’s Empowerment…began its search for inspiring examples of empowerment, in 2006, few might have imagined it would take us to a collective of sex workers in a town in the heart of Maharashtra in India. But the stories…I heard when I visited the Sangli headquarters of the Vamp collective not only summed up some of the most important lessons we were learning in the programme…they were also among the most impressive. “If I’d been married, I would have been HIV positive by now,” says one of Vamp’s stalwarts, Shabana, reflecting that married women are far more vulnerable than she is as a sex worker, unable to insist on condoms with their husbands as she does with her clients. And her face breaks into a smile as she describes the life she leads: the freedoms she enjoys, her choice of clients, and the autonomy and empowerment she has…

It is all too often assumed that disempowerment leads women to sell sexual services – as a last resort, as the ultimate step before destitution, and out of coercion rather than choice. The sex workers I met in Sangli, however, made it quite clear that being in business – they refer to their work as dhanda, meaning business – was not something they did out of desperation. Some had been married and returned to sex work full of pity for those women who had to put up with the privations and lack of freedom marriage brings. Some had tried other jobs, and found them tiring, exploitative and badly paid, echoing the findings of the first pan-India survey of sex workers. Sex work was, for them, an occupation they spoke of with pride, despite the stigma…

Vamp’s mission is to change society. Rather than treating sex workers as victims to be rescued or rehabilitated, it demonstrates the power of collective action as a force for women’s empowerment, mobilising sex workers to improve their working conditions, and claim rights and recognition…

The article also contained a link to a short documentary about three members of VAMP, “Save Us from Saviors”, which you can watch below. Of course, the comment thread was full of the usual “prostitution is exploitation”, “women are pathetic victims” and “think of the children!” rubbish, but the wind is shifting…and before too many more years, those who hold such opinions will find themselves just as much out in the cold as those who mindlessly hate other sexual minorities do today.

21 Responses

Well first – did I say that I used to be a full-on Socialist? I don’t think I said that but yeah – I was, in high school. In fact, when I became a submariner the government did a security clearance on me and talked to one of my old girlfriends who told them … “He’s an awesome guy – but I can’t guarantee you he’s not a Communist.” LOL (I did a FOIA request for the investigation – and that was actually written in it – with her name “blacked out” but I knew who it was. :P)

And – back then … I loved Debs – Debs was my hero.

Oh those were some idealistic days.

And – I think Debs was right to a certain extent about “change” and the minority. Although, I can think of a few “changes” which came from the “minority” that didn’t work out so well.

We need to be careful about “demonizing” the majority. Whatever change takes place – at the end of the day – we are left with rule by the majority. It’s not perfect – but it’s a damn site better than rule by the “minority”.

I look at it like this … in “The Matrix”, Neo looked at the humans (the majority) who were still plugged into the matrix as “slaves”. His last quote in the movie …

“I know you’re out there. I can feel you now. I know that you’re afraid… afraid of us. You’re afraid of change. I don’t know the future. I didn’t come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it’s going to begin.

I’m going to show these people what you don’t want them to see. I’m going to show them …”

Decriminalization is such a logically easy argument to make – we can sell this to the majority I know we can. Especially when the traffickers are backed against the wall and making the kind of ridiculous and desperate statements they are now! :)

If you don’t want me quoting Debs, how about Von Mises? “In the long run the ideas of the majority, however detrimental they may be, will carry on. The future of mankind depends on the ability of the elite to influence public opinion in the right direction.” They mean the same basic thing.

I don’t get it.
That quote seems to be advocating the idea that the future of humanity depends on some elite group’s ability to manipulate the rest of mankind, which doesn’t fit in with libertarian principles.

The reason I didn’t use it was exactly because of the danger of willful misinterpretation along exactly those lines. There is nothing wrong with trying to INFLUENCE public opinion; after all, that’s why those who love liberty speak out on the subject. “Influence” is only wrong when used as a euphemism for coercion (as when a government does it at gunpoint) or deception. Tellingly, you read “influence” as “manipulate”; I suggest you contemplate why you did that.

That’s because I read “influence” as “manipulate” when in reference to any kind of word like “elite”. I think it’s one of those generational things. To me, the word “elite” in reference to politics has a very conspiratorial tone to it. It sounds like he’s talking about the illuminati or some other group.
What exactly is “the elite” he’s talking about?

I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly, bodily powers gave place among the aristoi [aristocrats]. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness, and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground for distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy, founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class.The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed, it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say, that that form of government is the best, which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendency.?I think the best remedy is exactly that provided by all our constitutions, to leave to the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi [pseudoaristocrats], of the wheat from the chaff. In general they will elect the really good and wise. In some instances, wealth may corrupt, and birth blind them, but not in sufficient degree to endanger the society.

I don’t think you have to have a hereditary aristocracy in order to have an artificial one in the sense Jefferson is writing about here. And I much prefer Jefferson’s version to John Adams…

Hilary Clinton-the poster child for ridiculed wife staying with infidel husband for money and power, finally doing sth good.shed better stick to that ”pro sex worker rights”mode,mostly because shes a whore herself,since she became what she is now because of her husband.too bad that every stupid neofeminist thinks of her as an icon and every idiot calls Monica a whore and thinks of her as respectable.anyway…
im glad that there is some progress in such a sensitive and important matter and although i dont expect peoples mentalities about sex work to change any time soon at least we can hope for better policies and rights.

I used to work occasionally with Hillary from ’92 to ’95. I’m sure she wouldn’t remember my name and I’m pretty sure she’s forgotten my face but …

I did NOT like her a bit back then. I thought she was way too “OCD” and often petty in her dealings with others. She never smiled and she “skulked” about the White House grounds a lot. I remember one Monday morning coming into work and she had invented a huge controversy by refusing to use the car picked for her and “commandeering” a USSS vehicle to drive her around on a trip to Miami once. All her support equipment was in the other car and I had to send a guy to Miami with more equipment to do a hot install in the car she was actually using. She was not a nice person back then.

But, something has changed in her and she seems a lot more pleasant to me today. I think the reason for it is she’s finally decided to give up politics after this SoS gig she’s currently in. I think she’s grooving on Chelsea and her marriage and looking forward to being a grandma – that’s my take on it because she just looks sooooo much more comfortable than she used to. I think the reason for that is th ’07 campaign where her own party passed her up for “The One” – and she didn’t like that and has reacted by “punching out” of the system and living life for other things. Good for her if I’m right.

But – you are right, she put up with a lot from Bill for the purpose of climbing the political ladder – so in that way she’s very much the “whore” you describe. It’s not just the things he did to her – he did them right in her face and he pretty much forced her to clean up his messes after him. And she did it.

With the exception of the trafficking hysteria – I would have to agree with you.

I read somewhere that she was working an incredible number of hours each day and flying to all parts of the world. The energy at the state department is WAAY up. I have even heard that morale is pretty good with her in charge – which I find astonishing based on my knowledge of her during the WH years. So there’s been a huge change.

Add to that the fact that Obama’s foreign policy is the most dis-jointed adventure I’ve ever witnessed – and she’s on the tip of that spear trying to make sense of it …

I would say that Obama owes her a BIG thank you. He hasn’t made her job easier but she’s definitely made his job easier for him.

every time i think of the blowjob and the blue dress and the bullshit Clinton used to say to justify himself,my god its one of the funniest stories ive ever heard.imagine,its so popular that although im born in 1992,which means i was very young when it happened, the story has survived so well that i know all the details,because people still talk about it nowadays and it brings laughter.and thats a lot to say for a country,such as Greece,funny shit happens here all the time.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who
That it’s namin’
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’.

[…] on to expand their power over individuals no matter what the facts may be. But starting in the summer of 2012, the tide began to slowly turn in our favor; though the Swedish model and “anti-trafficking” […]

[…] depicted by the prohibitionists as “rescuing” us from our own choices…But starting in the summer of 2012, the tide began to slowly turn in our favor; though the Swedish model and “anti-trafficking” […]

Maggie on Twitter

Boring but necessary legal stuff

All original content on this website (i.e. all of my columns, pages and anything else which I write myself) is protected under international copyright law as of the time it is posted; though you may link to it as you please or quote passages (as long as you attribute the quote to me), please do not reproduce whole columns without my express written permission. In other words, you have to say "pretty please with sugar on top" first, and then wait for me to say "okey-dokey".